Pennsylvania Refuses to Disclose Banned Website List

koehn writes "In an interesting turn of events, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania has ordered all PA ISPs to block sites that have child porn. If that's not bad enough, they won't tell you which sites those are because - so the excuse goes - that could be construed as 'disseminating pornography.' So much for public review, huh?" See the previous story.

Comments

Maybe they don't *have* a list?

[dspeyer]

I realize this is a hideously Orwellian (Heelerian?) Catch-22, but it could be pure incompitance. When the ruling first appeared, many here questioned how such a law might be enforced when surely any ISP discovering child porn should report it to police so the server can be taken down.

It seems likely to me that they simply don't have a list, and they want to make it the ISP's problems. The best law enforcement agencies in the country can't stop kiddy-porn rings, so let's see if overworked sysadmins can! If it fails, at least we'll be able to pass the blame...

I think ISPs should simply declare that, to the best of their knowledge, there is no kiddy porn on the web, and only block things if they get complaints (then report the complainant as having viewed kiddy-porn.)

CDT Calls Penn Blocking Law Unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

The CDT report - entitled "The Pennsylvania ISP Liability Law: An Unconstitutional Prior Restraint and a Threat to the Stability of the Internet" - analyzes a 2002 Pennsylvania law that forces ISPs to block access to any web site deemed "child pornography" without notice to the site's publisher and without any opportunity to challenge the determination. ISPs are required to block the sites even if they do not host the content and have no relationship whatsoever with the publishers of the content. The Pennsylvania Attorney General has since gone even further, bypassing the law's inadequate court procedures to simply demand by letter that sites be blocked.

CDT.org

More News

Re:Bad for Who?

[nick this]

Several things that bother me about it:

1. It's a slippery slope. Once the goverment decides that its job is to censor web sites, where does it stop? All pornography? Terrorist sites? Legitimate news sites from "terrorist countries"? Legitimate news sites period? Bad precedent, in my opinion.

2. This is a job that should be done at the end-user location. Want to surf safely? Don't surf on machines that don't have content filtering programs on them. Want your child to surf safely? Don't let him/her surf on machines that don't have content filtering programs on them.

3. Lastly, what are we protecting people from? It's an evil world, and evil stuff exists out there. We can't ignore it. And hiding it doesn't make it go away. I'm not sure what this fundamentally accomplishes.

Re:why not shut em down?

[sheddd]

Kiddie porn is bad

Define kiddie porn, please; beauty pageants for preteens give me a much ickier feeling than watching a 17 year old screw a guy. Who should be the judge of what's indecent? Or illegal?

Unconscionable law

[mattr]

First, I am totally against child porn, totally. However Pennsylvania's action is completely hideous and could create more problems than it solves. Consider:

• Blocking sites make it impossible for Pennsylvania enforcement officers to find child porn traders in their own state, pushing them farther underground!
• Misuse of secret web censorship lists is well documented. It is possible to disclose information about where these sites are without making an open advertisement. Their argument is illogical.
• Their action may be unconsitutional and certainly may be moot should a Freedom Of Information Act request be made by someone with the list published anywhere on the net
• It is not possible for people to use the net to identify Pennsylvania's definition of child porn should the medium itself be censored.
• There is no information about whether they are making efforts to identify whether underage models are actually being used.
• I am thinking about the comics sold in every convenience store in Japan that have drawings which could be construed as child porn, and use of the term "Lolita" for young-looking models. I don't want to see these myself, however what happens to people who have gotten used to this kind of titillation and when the virtual source of imagery dries up will they not be led to look for actual child porn and exploitative venues in the real world?
• Likewise would this cover sites which distribute dirty stories? There must be at least one nasty child porn fantasy in there. An easy way to ban these sites, just have some fundamentalist submit a bunch of illegal stories and sue them?
• Many fibers undoubtedly run through Pennsylvania, are they going to be censoring all packets at all switches? This is a neat way to start killing the Internet, let's drop every spamming country off the net.. not.
• There is no information (I presume) about how to find out if your site is banned in Pennsylvania, say what if a hacker started serving child porn from your 0wned box, and there is no information about how to reinstate an IP address.
• Since the point is in fact removing dangerous and illegal information from the net, in particular the underlying reason should be to protect children from dangerous exploitation, it is in society's best interest to openly maintain a database of sites accused of child pornography, which states and municipalities may use to implement censorship should they so choose.
• This database would set a huge precedent and it is scary to me, but it would at least remove the idea of secret blocking lists and enable accused sites to fight back. It is possible that many people may not even know their provider is hosting these things, and they can also bring pressure on the hosting companies to police themselves.
• Unless a site has been wrongly accused of hosting child pornography, or is in fact a honeypot being used for a big sting operation by the government, it is really very unlikely that publically available sites are going to be hosting this stuff, at least in the U.S. (Of course there could indeed be a list of overseas sites which have not been taken down due to different local ordinances). Therefore, it is VERY likely that Pennsylvania's secret list is not only UNLAWFUL but also FALSE in that they do not in fact have a list of child pornography websites to ban. The real threat of secret lists of unlawfully censored information sources is anathema to our society. Either something is illegal in a given territory, or it is not. They can't get away with promoting vague notions of propriety with scare tactics and secrecy. It is not even likely that they will succeed at reducing the flow of child pornography in their state.
• Pennsylvania's action is also a restraint on interstate commerce in that a secret list will enable law enforcement to search any digital medium including hd,cd,dvd, cable, and wireless networks, for potentially incriminating evidence without explaining exactly what is illegal. In particular it seems likely that web caches operated by universities and companies may unwittingly hold such information, and this action opens the doors to a broad range of abuses including but not limited to corruption of interstate telecommunications.
• It's also a dumb idea. 'Nuff said.

Re:Possession

[shepd]

You're right, and here's why:

By using a definition that says anything representing any sort of sexual act of anyone "underage" we get into situations that make this illegal (yes, I'm in Canada, and I'm technically going to break the old version of our laws):

It is reccomended that anyone under the age of 18 use a condom during sex to prevent the possibility of conceiving a child. A condom is worn by simply removing it from its wrapper and then rolling it down one's penis.

Because I mentioned sex, and a sexual act between minors I have broken the law. Does anyone else here think that's silly? Insane, perhaps?

Don't believe me? Click here.

That's why child porn laws should be used to protect children from abusers, and not from information such as the above which they have a right to know. But an incensed public just doesn't seem to understand the difference, unfortunately, and only listens to police who clamour for such broad-scope laws that let *them* decide who gets raided and who doesn't, rather than you.

Remember, you can tell someone's true support for free speech by seeing if they're willing to support those they detest who harm no-one. And I detest pedophiles, but if they aren't abusing children, it's hard for me to find a reason they need to go to jail for. Really hard. Mental hospital, sure, but jail...

I think this site puts it better than I ever could have.

For those wondering what goes through the mind of a pedophile, read this. I'm surprised I even found it.